United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.3d 82 · 1994
Citation profile
30 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Calder v. Job · Roy v. Gravel · United States v. Joyner · United States v. Palta · United States v. Mickens
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The sentencing statute permits a court to depart from a guideline-specified sentence only when it finds “an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (b). The Commission intends the sentencing courts to treat each guideline as carving out a “heartland,” a set of typical cases embodying the conduct that each guideline describes. When a court finds an atypical case, one to which a particular guideline linguistically applies but where conduct significantly differs from the norm, the court may consider whether a departure is warranted. Section 5H1.10 (Race, Sex, National Origin, Creed, Religion, and So-cio-Economic Status), § 5H1.12 (Lack of Guidance as a Youth and Similar Circumstances), the third sentence of § 5H1.4 (Physical Condition, Including Drug Dependence and Alcohol Abuse), and the last sentence of § 5K2.12 (Coercion and Duress) list several factors that the court cannot take into account as grounds for departure. With those specific exceptions, however, the Commission does not intend to limit the kinds of factors, whether or not mentioned anywhere else in the guidelines, that could constitute grounds for departure in an unusual case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f there is no clear error in the district court's factual findings and no error in its conclusion that the factor is a permissible ground for departure, ... we review the resulting sentence to determine whether or not it is reasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.